Re: [projectvrm] #Backtobasics the VRM principles: two questions

[Guy Higgins < >]

Devon,

Thanks.  

I agree that the world is far outstripping the capability of any administrative system to keep pace.  Administrative systems react and the world moves without waiting for that reaction.

Guy

From: Devon M T Loffreto < "> >
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:46:43 -0400
To: Guy Higgins < "> >
Cc: William Heath < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] #Backtobasics the VRM principles: two questions

Good point Guy... "administrators" is not the right context for the statement I made... it puts the notion in the hands of the people serving a role they simply fill, rather than define. (Good people with good intents much more often than not too I should add.) Instead, its the "system design" that bears the intent... to wit, in the US we have a few important examples that come to the surface when discussion of "personal" "indie" "direct" "edge driven" authority models are advanced... such as the electoral college. 

I add what I consider to be an "error of omission" in the form of a recursive signatory to the US Constitution at an appropriate age of accountability to that list. Making babies citizens, defined as social liabilities, and leveraging the asset value of those Individuals is a systemic outcome defined by the administrative precedence of personal Sovereign authority...or the lack thereof. Citizenship is an act of data-capture today... and the UN, with the best of intents, has declared it a "Right of the Child" to be given an identity and Nationality by default birth on this planet. It is the resulting administrative precedence of such an act that bears unaccounted outcomes germaine to the consideration of a personally Sovereign structure of participation in Society.

The administered equivalent of personal Sovereignty in a socio-economic context is "personal ownership". By default, customer roles own nothing... and require a beggars assistance to right the wrongs that only get examined via mass-communication of such wrongs. Otherwise, customers of governing authority are at the mercy of administrators... an increasingly intolerable outcome in a world that is advancing faster than our public education infrastructure has the ability to service in churning out credentialed "employees" with an understanding of both micro and macro considerations.

The internet is advancing indie direct connections to resources of value...and our administrative system is waging a war against that outcome.

Devon

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Devon,

Interesting thoughts.  Thanks.

I will assert that, "administrators denying people their personal Sovereignty by designed intent” is a false attribution.  Having served in government (including sixteen years within the confines of Disneyland-on-the-Potomac) and then in industry selling to the government for a total of 45 years, I have never seen a single example of an administrator (or legislator) denying people personal Sovereignty by designed intent.  Such an effort would far exceed the authority, power or energy of the administrators.  What we see is, I think, the results of an uncontrolled desire to “do good things.”  Administrators take their jobs very seriously, believe that those jobs are very important, and want to do their jobs better.  This push to improve the performance of their jobs and “do good” better all the time results in a creeping expansion of power and authority — not because the administrators are doing it by design, but because the inertia of the organization to “do good” better, takes the entire organization in that direction — unless there is action by intent to stop that creep, and such action by intent does not seem to exist.

I see this same creep in many things.  The EPA develops increasingly rigorous regulations because cleaner is better — except that they don’t consider what it means to live under those regulations.  Fraternity initiations slowly become more extreme because people understand the extreme-ism of their own initiation more acutely than that of the initiation they are forcing on the next class.  Police departments long for added authority to stop people whom they think might be in violation of the law — not because they are gestapo, but because they see the evils of crime and want to do more and more to stop it.  

People seem not to want to keep the oscillations of the pendulum small, but seem to be intent on driving the oscillations larger and larger. 

Dunno what the answer is, but transparency and control of ones self (writ large) are extremely important parts of constraining the oscillations.  

Guy

From: Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> >
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:59:00 -0400
To: William Heath < " target="_blank"> >
Cc: ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] #Backtobasics the VRM principles: two questions

Oh, and btw... on the point of words and structures mattering...

"Employees" are "customers" of job opportunities.

Whereas, indie workers such as "Contractors" are the "Owners" of work output.

The distinction is critical... all the way to the tax man and procedures of value capture and storage... ie customers of opportunity pay the Gov 1st for the opportunity to work, and keep only what is left over... while owners of work output pay the Gov last with what is left after all deductions for producing work have been compensated.

It is the unaccountable roles that people play that create unchecked power in the hands of administrators denying people their personal Sovereignty by designed intent.

Devon

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Devon M T Loffreto < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Well provoked William... I'll take the bait :)

First question is: are these "aspiration statements" or "declarations of fact"?

For me, those pesky details resolve to specific words that have specific meanings and operate in specific legal context which mix together with other specific legal context that have been designed to both protect and leverage their own structures, both for and against interactions with those legal contexts.

Think about the holiday season... envision the front door of that aesthetically pleasing shopping experience known as WalMart... enter VRM point "Customers must be able to assert their own terms of engagement."... uh... has anyone seen video of those doors opening? Those are customers... some of them die just getting in the door. What "terms of engagement" are they going to be asserting?

Sound pessimistic? I agree. The problem is that "customers" is not an empowering construct to find yourself in... it is devoid of effort... in fact it is part of the problem...consider:

A baby is born... enter VRM point "Customers must enter relationships with vendors as independent actors."... at this point we have the government (GRM) and health care forming relationships via parents that construe the data and life of this Individual baby as anything but "independent actors"... in fact it is really the first inappropriate "customer" relationship... and its output manifests in a few disturbing ways... such as "citizens" interacting with their government as "customers" (What? - how did that happen?)... or when you get home from the hospital, within a week you will receive (in America at least) a solicitation in your child's legal name from Gerber Life Insurance (perfectly named for customer interaction)... not to mention that public benefit services like social security #'s start to become data liabilities, and the first point of identity theft due to their lack of use by babies without any independent authority, but who are stood up as data-slaves none the less.

How does the "customer" role serve any functional empowerment outcome?

Enter "Personal Sovereignty"... at its root, this idea is about NEVER being construed as a "customer"... or a dis-empowered structure in the socio-economic system that is preyed upon by default... and instead focusing on shifting the structure to one of personal control and authority.

I shop... but why would I ever do it as a "customer"... a structure devoid of meaning, data integrity or leverage... when I can function as a "market owner" with a deliberate structure that has specific meaning, intent-bearing leverage and the ability to maintain data integrity purposefully? We keep talking about "free is a lie" and "discounts are disingenuous"... but "customers" absolutely LOVE those things and have likely never even considered the points raised in this thread. There is no requirement for any advanced intelligence to be a "customer"...in fact it is the abdication of intelligence that breeds that role. That is how the market greases the wheels.

So for VRM... I again urge us to consider that the very role of "customer" is the root problem preventing any meaningful leverage from existing between Individuals and organizational structures. There is a very real structural shift when we move from that role to one where VRM enables more partnering exchanges and mutually beneficial points of leverage.

Words matter... leverage matters.

Personal Sovereignty is important because it is the manner of inaugurating an Individuals relationship with Society that defines whether we have any personal Sovereignty or are just customers of freedom. It begs the question I raise here asking "Does an administrative system hold a monopoly on the Rights of forming identities with Sovereign authority? This being prompted by one of my favorite sessions at the IIW just ended titled "Self ID" concerning our ability to function as our own identity providers (IDP).

Bottom line is that I take issue with the word "customers"... who I believe will always function as prey in the market through abdication of personal Sovereignty. Note: that doesnt mean we should allow prey to be deliberated disrespected or abused...but... it is not a deliberately empowered role that can care-take that outcome for itself.)

Devon

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, William Heath < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Before last IIW I looked back at the VRM principles. They are

Project VRM principles

• - Customers must enter relationships with vendors as independent actors.

• - Customers must be the points of integration for their own data.

• - Customers must have control of data they generate and gather. This means they must be able to share data selectively and voluntarily.

• - Customers must be able to assert their own terms of engagement.

• - Customers must be free to express their demands and intentions outside of any one company's control.

I have two questions.

1. Are these 100% spot on? (They seem OK to me but devil is always in the detail)

2. Do we foresee an environment in which some "true VRM" companies are publicly said to conform to these principles, whilst some "faux VRM" companies are called out for VRM-washing, or purporting to put the individual in control when in fact they create a new proprietary dependency? (eg ownyourowndata.com had Ts&Cs saying "any data you enter into our web sute becomes the property of ownyourowndata Inc or similar). How will that work? Will that be indpendent voices? Does someone take up the role of declaring who's in and who's out?

A lot might ride on this. I think we're well into the stage where it's needed. Alan & Liz over at Ctrl-Shift report hopeful new VRM businesses launching at rate of > one per week last year.

William